As you say, despite YEARS of investigations, no claim against the Clintons have been proven. Yet, the right wingers continue to harp on it and pretend they are guilty. I am betting that if nothing is proven by way of concrete evidence against Kavanaugh, the right wingers will say the opposite - they will say he was innocent all along even if others testify against him and Congressional Republicans still approve of his presence on the USSC.
You misunderstood my point. My point was that they are just accusations without proof. Just like the women who complained about clinton. There was no evidence. This is politically driven.
another Minnesota Republican also accused: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/26/emily-schlecht-accuses-minnesota-state-rep-rod-ham/
I did get your point. But as I have said before, let all testimony be allowed, let us all reach an informed judgment. The Clinton matter has been concluded. Let's keep it that way. Once the Kavanaugh matter is concluded, keep it that way as well.
that's dangerous... before they allow any 'testimony' the accuser should be required to file charges with the police/da & swear out a complaint, in a timely fashion, otherwise they might as well just call it for what it is, 'propaganda'...
something someone mentioned at lunch today: "if we hang everyone whom may have done something inappropriate when in high school and/or college, we may as well close up shop because they'd be no one left to run the joint"
If he was too drunk to remember his sexual assault upon the fifteen year old, a condition made very believable by Mark Judge's revelatory memoir, I/m not sure what it could reveal.
Truth is not based upon a fifteen year old traumatized victim expeditiously completing the proper paperwork. Nor is consideration for a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court a criminal matter.
He did it. He doesn't even deny it properly, but claims he didn't have intercourse, which is not even what either allegation is focused on. The guy sounds like a swamp monster.
Actually, I am forced to agree with your conclusion. Why? Because two negligent, bungling, ineffective Republican JERKS -- Darrell Issa, and, Trey Gowdy, let Hillary get completely away with numerous, obvious crimes against national security and classified information. A first-year law student who had gone through the process of getting a top-secret security clearance for himself could have nailed her ignorant, STOOPID ass to the wall, but not Issa and Gowdy. Where to start, you ask? Did she have her private server, on which she received, transmitted, and re-transmitted classified information protected within a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF)? No? For that alone she should have been stripped of her security clearances, charged with crimes, and brought to trial... and she would have easily been found guilty. I've been over this a hundred times.... But, OH BOY, with nothing but slander, rumor, and bullshit "he said/she said" fairy tales, the radical Democrats are primed and ready to pull Kavanaugh's guts out and burn them in front of his face! Very Nazi, and, very medieval! Think: this liberal Democrat college teacher, who is already 'outed' as a strong party supporter, can't even remember what YEAR Brett Kavanaugh supposedly forced his horrific "SEX CRIMES" on her...?! Who but a willfully blind, gullible, blood-thirsty DEMOCRAT could even believe anything like that?!
Excellent questions, Vman. And I would add, "WHO conducted these polygraph tests, using WHAT methodology?" Lie-detector tests have gotten to be notoriously easy to fool even if they are HONESTLY conducted, and that's part of why they have NEVER been admissible as evidence in a court of law!
I suppose that had Congress tried they could have found just an easy way to condemn traitor Bush for the WMD myth that led to the death of thousands of Americans ...
You left out ALL of the parts of my post that dealt with the Democrat Party's smearing of Brett Kavanaugh, which is not surprising given your political orientation. And now you're dragging up the stupid Iraq War fiasco? Lately, I've become aware that the Moderators will delete posts that they deem to be off-topic, and going off on some 'rabbit-trail' about Idiot Bush and the insanely STOOPID Iraq War is a good way to get deleted. What I wrote about Kavanaugh stands, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. It's all a contrived, desperate last-minute 'hit-job' put on by radical Democrats who cheered when Idiot Obama put two lock-step, hyperliberal judges on the Supreme Court, but who can't stand the idea of it being rebalanced by the addition one more CONSTITUTIONALIST judge. Why? Because using federal courts, high and low, has been the best tool that radical Democrats have had to be able to throw the WILL OF THE PEOPLE in the ditch -- over and over....
actually, if you could set aside your emotionalism for a moment, my post was a call for thoroughness just like you demanded as for "smearing", that remains to be seen - a full and impartial hearing will determine whether such an accusation is warranted --- as you are not fully apprised of all the facts, your term "smearing" is without basis a full examination of ALL facts will determine whether what you say is true or not and will answer everybody's questions
funny comment in view of the fact that Trump did not get majority support in the election and his approval ratings remain well below 50% if the will of the people was the prime determinant in all of politics, Congress, the Supreme Court, most state legislatures and governorships, and, yes, even the White House, would all be Democratic party majorities
Why is it the liberal posters, even on their own hatchet threads they themselves created are trying to do anything but stay on topic about the Ford slander? It's like, suddenly, they all just figured out that their little sham is up, will be watched by millions of folks tomorrow, and all they want to do today is walk it all back.. I say, let us all remember what the liberals have done to us, and our nation. Where our liberals, who claim they're looking out for women, have just torpedoed the #Me Too movement by having propped up this entirely un-credible woman making claims that frankly are specious at best.
Where is your proof that her claims are specious? Up to a few months ago Bill Cosby's defenders said claims against him were specious. For years, defenders of sexual perverts in the churches claimed criticism of the clergy were specious. But in the end, it turned out those claims were correct. How do you know her claims aren't equally correct? Let's see your evidence.
Hmm... lets see... no evidence. no specific answer for where, or when, and including whom. Specious. As in calculate, purposeful lies. Specious. Now, demonstrate you have the ability to answer those questions absent her inputs.. Tic Toc....
LOL. And you say you're a lawyer... LOL..... Riddle me this lawman... when it turns out she still doesn't have those answers, then what? Are you going to be first in line to charge her with character assassination, slander, or libel? And when her performance permanently damages the #MeToo movement, how will you respond?
